Getty Images
Remember House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan? In 2011, nearly every GOP lawmaker in Congress threw their support to the radical proposal, perhaps best known for ending Medicare and replacing it with a voucher scheme. Ryan's blueprint slashed public investments, gutted assistance to the most vulnerable Americans, and relied on magical assumptions that crumbled under mild scrutiny.
And in 2013, the House Republicans' budget plan will be much worse.
The budget battle took new shape Tuesday when House Republicans disclosed plans to design a tax and spending proposal that would lead to a balanced budget in 10 years, something leaders from neither party have tackled in recent decades. [...]
If Mr. Ryan plans to design a budget plan in the coming weeks that would balance the budget by 2024, he'll have to deal with the tricky balance between taxes (which Republicans want to keep low) and spending.
That's quite an understatement.
I realize it's probably a bad idea to combine inside baseball on Capitol Hill and budget wonkery, but this is pretty amazing.
Ryan's notorious budget plan was lauded by establishment media types who didn't read it, and had no idea how fiscally insane it was. For all the hype about the Wisconsin Republican being a "deficit hawk," Ryan's budget plan actually proved the opposite -- he cut spending to the bone in all kinds of critical areas, but instead of applying those savings to debt reduction, Ryan's blueprint applied the money to more tax breaks for the wealthy. Ryan's plan -- the one celebrated by pundits for being "serious" -- didn't balance the budget until 2040, nearly three decades away, and even then, the figures relied on rosy assumptions that most found unrealistic.
Now, however, Ryan intends to unveil a plan to balance the budget in one decade instead of three. Take a wild guess what that means.
It means, of course, that Ryan will either present a budget plan so absurd that it will be literally laughable, filled with outrageous magic asterisks, or it will be the most brutal and regressive plan ever seriously considered by a major American political party.
Republicans have already ruled out tax increases, Pentagon cuts, and changes to entitlements for current retirees. As Jon Chait explained, that doesn't leave Ryan with a whole lot of choices if he intends to bring the deficit to zero in just 10 years.
You have, mainly, programs for the poor and very sick, like Medicaid, child nutrition, unemployment benefits, and so on. Then you have domestic discretionary spending, which is basically all the major functions of government that aren't either defense or writing a check to people -- infrastructure, food inspectors, scientific research, and on and on. Republicans have already forced Obama to accept extremely tight caps that would cut domestic discretionary spending to well below its lowest level as a share of the economy in decades. How those caps would actually be implemented when it comes time to impose the cuts, I can't imagine.
But that's the pot of available savings. It's around a trillion and a half dollars in 2023. So, that means House Republicans will have to cut domestic discretionary programs and spending for the poor by about half. [...]
Now, if you assume that Republicans aren't going to actually figure out how to go further than the domestic discretionary cuts they've already voted for -- I doubt they can actually carry those out -- then the available pool of spending is the $900 billion-some dollars spent on programs for the poor and sick: Medicaid, food stamps, etc. So we're looking at close to a 90% spending cut on programs for the poor and sick.
It's an agenda intended to make the original Ryan plan look almost liberal by comparison.
I can't wait to see this plan. I also can't wait to see how many House Republicans are prepared to actually vote for it.
Leave a Comment:
Well who cares about the poor and the sick. It's their fault they got that way. Money-grubbing moochers, taking from the people who did the hard work of being born with a silver spoon in their mouths!
(channeling Rethuglican of course)
Right! It isn't the One Percent's fault that the poor weren't smart enough and ambitious enough to choose to be born to well-off parents like they were.
And people, never forget.... Republicans always prefer to eat babies that are fresh, never frozen.
It has been said by more than one on the Right that if you're not rich, you are either lazy or stupid. I say that, before ANY benefits are even proposed for cutting, members of Congress spend 2 weeks on Food Stamps, in a subsidized home and no access to convenient transportation, just mass transit. Walk a mile in their shoes, so to speak. And if they can come up with a way to live well on even LESS, then they've got some leverage for negotiations.
MissyCheeks, that is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Heaven forbid any members of Congress leave their comfortable lives to gain a bit of empathy.
Except when they're unborn Shooter, in which case nothing is too extreme to "save" them.
Could it be anymore clear that lyin ryan is a FRAUD!
Well of course, Shooter. Babies are much better fresh. Freezing babies damages their soft, tender flesh.
In a manner of speaking, those on the right, particularly the malefactors of great wealth, do "eat" babies.
That's the whole reason the Right is against abortion. It cuts into their food supply.
Republican trickle-down budgeting:
"It's like magic, only real."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPOQ8pzY0kY&ytsession=azv09Agq154vGhni0RVjzslj4xWWf58bryd29BuJdJn-U3rrd8h3Mr5PJON_lOSqogQ8RcWSZ0SUstOk8h7Mtim0mXsJ8KQIMNmNlVj7yisK2DlpXAmOYS9OPEzyHSSc6pdOD0qJ6FX7Kw4ernsZQww25utDzBUMRD4QVfBAbqqo8h1qGgOTJhtkpIi0y_Z2-KF1WxemFkMGY7IDM-p3-UhdVusdgkG9oneGPRZ9TSzDUbTszcyXQESfyDHrx4wD8SnXnNENXnbTI7SpvFa0wdwXXdqTo-vShsp73IwffTs
Of course, the fun will be when the Confederate scum in the House send their so-called "budget" to the Senate, where it gets "modified" to the Senate's pleasure and sent back to them.
The good news is, as has been pointed out many times, a "budget resolution" is a non-binding irrelevant document that means nothing - which is why of course the inbred southern morons think it's important.
Paul Ryan will no doubt master mind a truly Soylent Green Budget and save his uber rich friends from being taxed to death!
(The taxed to death precept runs deep in Republican circles!) -Kevo
I applaud his "plan".
Because it both cuts my taxes, allowing me to buy moar gunz, and cuts the police, which means I can go to his fancy mansion with my gunz, and throw his family out. Maybe I will keep his wife, for "chores", and such.
Just like the wild frontier. Like the man says, "Yippy Ki-yay!"
It will be of some interest to find if the media reading of this is in step with the echo Mr. Benen has limned . It should be Matthew's caution “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" .
Then this should be an easy coda "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles ?" .
I am sure Mr Ryans new budget will return to classical models of economics. But not from Adam Smith but Jonathan Swift.
"Ayn Rand and the Sociopathic Society"
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/02/sociopathic/
At least Jonathan Swift knew he was writing satire.
I am beginning to think that the wild eyed Mr. Ryan is mentally ill.
His plan is not so much like one Ayn Rand would come up with as it is reminiscent of Charles Dickens. Together he and Bobby Jindal will come up with a way to starve the American people to death, not just the U.S. government.
We need to get people like these out of our government before it's too late.
I hope it is not already too late.
If he isn't mentally ill, then his head is crammed so full of twisted 'information' that the practical outcome is the same.
I also can't wait to see how many House Republicans are prepared to actually vote for it.
That would be all of them.
A tiny step, to be sure, but surely Ryan's first step would be to eliminate Congressional salaries and medical benefits, right? No, I guess not...
Don't leave the budget up to this guy: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/11/paul-ryan-all-pumped-up-for-his-closeup/#3
Mr. Ryan should go on Oprah, Ellen, The View and Letterman and explain to the American people why we should discard everyone not in the correct financial and social circles. Of course he will be afraid to not have a hand picked audience or questioner. Avoiding facing the public will show him for the coward he is. He might as well wear a hood to keep him from being seen.
He sure isn't around in His District, Just waiting for one of his "Speaking Session's" Not "Listening Session's" as He put's it. He speak's WE listen, But He doesn't Listen to when WE speak.
I think I see another case of Republicans, in general and Paul Ryan, in specific- believing their 'data' to be real and basing policy to fit. They seem to believe that there won't be consequences for trying to economically crush an emerging population of 'boomers'. They apparently are using data that says there are low numbers of poverty level folks in this age bubble.
They will be proven to have, again, wildly mistaken t-party data for reality. I don't even think the Democratic party even understands the depth of poverty and near-poverty in this age group. And the boomer bubble has just really started. Yes, of course the majority of them are on some form of assistance- from Veterans to Fed housing assistance- and everything thing in between. A great many are homeless- far more than the stats are showing. All national level homelessness projects agree on that.
And Paul Ryan wants to toss these folks loose .. ?
This will be great fun to watch.....
How many angry white men in the south do you think Paul's budget will effect?
It will be both. And then those "centrist" pundits like Milbank, Friedman, etc. will get busy pounding their drums that somebody needs to start meeting in the middle so things can get done.
Behold ! It shall be called the Paul and Ayn Rand budget. Complete with lots of "more for me / none for you" language. My sacred bull shall not be gored but yours shall be eaten bones and all.
Ryan spends millions on his reelection campaigns every two years in order to keep his cushy job with outstanding benefits. That makes him one of the "takers" he so despises. But he is not a "maker" as he likes to say. What does he make besides $174,000 plus benefits at taxpayer expense? Congress was in session 105 days last year while doing nothing but voting no on anything that would help the middle class. Explain to us again Mr.Ryan who is the "taker"?
What does he make...?
He makes "law". Which is something, like sausage, that should not be witnessed by the general public.
I predict he goes hard after Medicade, because that undermines the ACA.
the constitution says that we must pay our debts, we have no choice. When I started working at age 16 or so, social security was deducted from my paycheck and has been ever since. That forced deduction is connected to an implied contract that if I pay so much into this program, I will get so much out of it. So, it seems obvious that it is a constiutional requirement that the U.S. government pay its debt to me what they owe to me, not just what they owe to china.
If there is to be social security reform, it needs to start with those just paying in, not those who have paid in for 30 or 40 years.
This is all bargaining. Start off so far off from the middle that for anyone to reach a compromise they will have to go way out of their comfort zone to meet you. It's what I think the Democrats should do. Present the Repubs with an outlandish plan and watch them try to meet somewhere in between, except the Repubs won't even try. That's the difference between the parties. They play by different rules.
I had the same thought. Republicans assume that Obama and the Dems will meet them in the middle with this proposal. But first Ryan has to get a vote in the House and that could be big trouble when the budget is proposed and some Republicans have to go back and face their constituents. Those Republicans in safe districts can easily vote for this radical budget, but those congressmen in swing districts are going to balk at voting for this. It may even prove to be so unpopular that even some Republicans in safe districts will be afraid to vote for it. Ryan and the Republicans are like children who keep touching a hot stove; when they get burned really bad, they will stop. But I am in favor of Ryan putting this budget up for a vote and watch the fear grow in some Republicans. This could end up like those town hall meetings with Obamacare. And Dems have the Obama campaign organization to make sure those town halls are not going to be a cakewalk for Republicans.
There are no Republican "swing districts" left.
There are no Republican "swing districts" left.
Not every safe district is so safe that Republicans cannot be challenged. Republicans are most vulnerable in suburban areas because voters in those districts are independents who have no loyalty to either party. Those districts can be worked by Dems to get out the vote as well as persuade voters to vote Dem. Also, Dems need to rebuild and assist state parties where Dems have significant numbers to build on. Organizations are built from the bottom up and not top down.